So, it has been revealed to me in class that Microsoft is in the process of switching to a business model where they will make us pay a monthly fee for Windows and Microsoft Products updates. Supposedly it is ~$10 / month for Micorosoft's programming failures and alpha tests of bug patches they call updates. If this happens and they force you to pay for it, bye bye Windows.

Yea, I don't think microsoft would add this nail.. and charge you for security updates. If anything they are gearing there product around the way apple does OSX. I can see them moving to that model. Do away with a new OS every 3 years and start charging for incremental updates. Instead of charging $300+ up front for a new version of Windows.. Do like Apple, and charge around $100(not actual.. I've not own a new apple OSX machine in awhile) for an update. It sounds good on paper and it would be good for people that buy OEM machines, but for us it won't be as friendly adding as much hardware and reformating as often as we do with our machines.

I think they have been more like $20-30 the last couple of years.. IIRC.

Click to expand...

Yea, the last update I bought was for my G5, and it was Leopard for around $110 - $130 in 07.. I wonder what made them drop there price? Do they offer an update every quarter now?

If Microsoft moves to this model then I can only see them doing it for the current price / numberofupdates = 3 years.. So, $300/12=$25 this is based on every quarter for 3 years... So yea, I can see 20-30 for a quarterly update. The only thing is can MS handle those kinds of updates? I think right now the only thing we know for sure, is that we'll all have to reboot after the update.. hehehe

Interesting.. I wonder how MS will handle this model.. Hmm maybe I'm not thinking about it correctly.. MS sales more OEM licenses then retail.. So based on yearly OEM pricing, Home ($90/3=$30), Pro ($130/3=$43.33).

Not going to happen for critical updates. It would make there systems venerable. Remember your just licensing the system so they want you to get updates for security. They took a lot of heat for XP and its problems with security

Not trying to be negative nancy here but I have proven some of my professors wrong on certain subjects when I was still in college. Just because they are your teacher doesnt mean they are always right. I am not saying be a dick about it but always question the questionable. I do not see this happening anytime soon. Most microsoft updates are bug and security fixes. Not feature add ons.

Of course not, because Windows is a perfect OS, there are no security flaws in it or bugs in the code. Oh wait...

Click to expand...

Not to say "Aleksander Dishnica" is, but that's usually what someone with a cracked OS says.. I don't agree with every update(preferably the ones that don't work), but to say you don't need any is foolish...

So, it has been revealed to me in class that Microsoft is in the process of switching to a business model where they will make us pay a monthly fee for Windows and Microsoft Products updates. Supposedly it is ~$10 / month for Micorosoft's programming failures and alpha tests of bug patches they call updates. If this happens and they force you to pay for it, bye bye Windows.

Click to expand...

Do you ever question ANYTHING you hear man? Honest question, not trolling.

I don't believe MS can really expect to move an OS from a product to a service. Why, the word is diversity.

MS sells to OEMs. They sell to consumers. They sell to government and industry. On paper, a $20 charge per quarter would be great for MS. The bigger problem is that it is infeasible. Government does not update quickly. Long standing services do not change their underlying software every quarter. The logistics of selling to those bodies (the bulk of MS's clients are business), while forcing updates via a service, is insane.

Why does Apple work like this? 100% control of the development environment, including hardware. They write 1 driver for each part, and that exact part might be in half their product line. Such tight controls allow them to offer improvement that can't possibly damage reverse compatibility. MS has to contend with a diverse hardware ecosystem, and a much more diverse software system.

Office as a service, definitely. MS will make insane amounts of money by charging people a constant lower price, while obfuscating the actual cost. You have to try hard to break a software like Office (it runs on the windows underpinnings, independent of hardware). It's easier to break an OS.

In my Windows Server 2008 Class. And Mailman, I don't believe everything I hear that is why i made the post to see what the reaction is and whether or not anyone else has heard similar.
I tend to take most of what my professors say with a grain of salt. Example, one of my professors is a Cisco instructor so, if they say Cisco is the best, that may be but may not be as well. My Windows Server instructor would eat what ever came out of the sewage line from Microsoft if it meant he would get a raise or something. I'm just bouncing what I hear in class against the established professionals(mostly) here. But I would not put anything past Steve Ballmer that crazy man.

In my Windows Server 2008 Class. And Mailman, I don't believe everything I hear that is why i made the post to see what the reaction is and whether or not anyone else has heard similar.
I tend to take most of what my professors say with a grain of salt. Example, one of my professors is a Cisco instructor so, if they say Cisco is the best, that may be but may not be as well. My Windows Server instructor would eat what ever came out of the sewage line from Microsoft if it meant he would get a raise or something. I'm just bouncing what I hear in class against the established professionals(mostly) here. But I would not put anything past Steve Ballmer that crazy man.

Click to expand...

I think your prof is terribly misinformed. This was kind of rumored when people starting asking about Windows Blue, which was rumored to be a bunch of updates you need to pay for but that isn't actually the case, it's more like a service pack but supposedly more than that.

EDIT:

Also I highly doubt Microsoft would charge for updates, ever. It doesn't make sense.

I think your prof is terribly misinformed. This was kind of rumored when people starting asking about Windows Blue, which was rumored to be a bunch of updates you need to pay for but that isn't actually the case, it's more like a service pack but supposedly more than that.

EDIT:

Also I highly doubt Microsoft would charge for updates, ever. It doesn't make sense.